Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

TAG

The Transcendental Argument for God attempts to show that all systems of thought other than Christian theism collapse into unintelligibility.

I'm going to use this thread to administer TAG therapy to the sick of the forum. If you feel like coming in for a checkup, make a response to this OP that outlines your worldview, including any clashes with the Christian worldview.

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.

I just skimmed it. I was not impressed. I will read it more thoroughly at some point, and perhaps respond.

At any rate, there is no obligation to refute every article on the internet that addresses some argument before making a thread about the argument.

This thread has a specific purpose. Talking too much about another article threatens that purpose. So this is the last I'll say about Todangst's article here.

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.

Do you assume that the frequenters of these forums are intellectually incapable of assailing your argument, or does it speak to something a bit deeper...

Theists and Atheists will never agree on the validity of the TAG argument; I would suppose that both feel it beneath them...and rightly so. This type of intellectual-lite supposition delineates neither an intelligent listener nor a less than farcical speaker. While I respect the rights of theist to argue their worldview in these pages, I fail to see how the TAG argument is anything other than the same, tired, rehash of second-rate logic that has existed since the dawn of the middle ages.

Do you assume that the frequenters of these forums are intellectually incapable of assailing your argument

Yes.

Yet when they do, you completely ignore the arguments and more or less tell them you agree to disagree, as you did with Bob. So yeah people have responded, given lots of arugments against it and for the most part you just end up ignoring their posts.

What's that? Someone posted about TAG? YAWWN (That was fast. I can barely stay awake now... Had a hunch epicdean10 was a plant... what agnostic asks about internet memes and TAG in the space of two posts? Sounds fishy....)

Oopsy! There, I fixed it for ya:

Presuppositionalist wrote:

The Transcendental Argument for God attempts to show that ... Christian theism collapse[s] into unintelligibility.

...and does so very convincingly.

Warning: If you're not prepared to be stuck on the event horizon of a black hole, circling it endlessly at light-speed, you might want to skip engaging presuppositionalists touting TAG. They are too braindead to see their own basic errors, and will gladly waste as much of your time as possible repeating them over and over again.

Me? I'm in it for kicks.

Quote:

I'm going to use this thread to administer TAG therapy to the sick of the forum. If you feel like coming in for a checkup, make a response to this OP that outlines your worldview, including any clashes with the Christian worldview.

Sorry, you claimed you could show that "all other" worldviews collapse. Your 'proof' either covers all other worldviews or it does not. My specific worldview is irrelevant.

The Trenne Al Dente Argument for the Existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the TA-DA!-FSM!

Trenne is a triangular pasta that exists. Trenne is best served al dente by nature, independent of shelf space, cooking time, ingredients, or human appetites. It is not a product of the supermarket (shelf space, cooking time, ingredients), because if the supermarket were to disappear, trenne would still be best served al dente. Trenne is not the product of human appetites, because human appetites are all different (not everybody likes Italian, after all!) But, since trenne is served al dente in restaurants everywhere, and not dependent on human appetites, it must be a monstrous al dente appetite that is serving them! Ta-da! Flying Spaghetti Monster!

blithely continue to insist our hindsight-based human laws of logic exist in all possible worlds when we barely comprehend the true nature of the only one we can be in? We're running the nature of the universe/multiverse now? That's bullshit. The only thing contingent to TAG is the theist's monkey brain.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck

blithely continue to insist our hindsight-based human laws of logic exist in all possible worlds when we barely comprehend the true nature of the only one we can be in? We're running the nature of the universe/multiverse now? That's bullshit. The only thing contingent to TAG is the theist's monkey brain.

God is a sentient being whose existence is not contingent on any external factors. There are no conditions under which God could not exist.

Translation: "God is a thinking thing that always existed / never existed. God must exist." That's not much of a definition, plus it doesn't help you with the whole debate thing.

Suppose there was another sentient being whose existence is not contingent on external factors (let's call it the snizzlewit), but is incapable of making anything or communicating with anything. Is the snizzlewit God? Suppose there were a million snizzlewits. Are they all gods?

God is a sentient being whose existence is not contingent on any external factors.

What scripture defines the Judeo-Christian God this way?

The scripture does not contain a glossary of terms.

This idea of God actually can be arrived at by philosophical inquiry alone, but here is what scripture does tell us:

Psalm 90:2Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

Genesis 21:33And Abraham planted a grove in Beersheba, and called there on the name of the Lord, the everlasting God.

Isaiah 57:15For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.

Deuteronomy 33:27The eternal God is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms: and he shall thrust out the enemy from before thee; and shall say, Destroy them.

I Timothy 1:17Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

The laws of logic are self-evident or axiomatic. For example, you did not discover the principle that "nothing can both be and not be at the same time" when you observed things in nature that were what they were and not what they were not. That would just make it inductive and it is not inductive.

Anything which is axiomatic has no potential to be falsified.

Therefore, the laws of logic by their nature have no potential to be falsified.

By asking me to "prove" that the laws of logic are always true, you are applying logic since proof necessitates logic. If you do not accept that logic is always true, then why would you use logical terms in order to argue against my position?

So that would provide 'God' can exist in all possible worlds, so how do you provide that 'God' does.

I think he means kind of the opposite. It's not that god could exist, it's that he couldn't not exist no matter the circumstance. It is a bit odd to define god that way. But as a rhetorical ploy that is pretty good. It is defining Fortunate_son's personal beliefs as certainly flawlessly correct on this matter.

By definition we are wrong guys. Let's pack up and shut down the site. It was a good run, but Fortunate_son has defined his views as the ones that have to be correct. Apparently epistemology works that way. Who knew?

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India

For example, you did not discover the principle that "nothing can both be and not be at the same time" when you observed things in nature that were what they were and not what they were not

I contend that this and all other laws of logic are deduced from observations of reality.

As Evidence, I site that young children do not develop a concept of identity until several years after they are born. Likewise, they do not understand that objects continue to exist outside of their perception of them. This can be demonstrated by taking a suitably young child and placing them before a 'theater' showing one object in that theater, closing the curtain, adding another object or taking the initial object away or switiching it for something else, openning the curtain, and judging their response. Sufficiently young children will not react, while slightly older children will react with confusion.

And I use logic because it is a useful mental construct of humanity that can aid in determinig correct thinking, nothing more. Logic only dictates whether or not a conclusion is sound based on the evidence and ideas used to arrive at it, never does it actually determine if that conclusion is correct. That cannot be done without observation and greater evidence.

After all, to the ancient civilizations of the world, the conclusion that the Earth was Flat was entirely logical. However it was still wrong.

This is why we don't have philosophers determine how the universe works, we have Scientists for that.

P.S. Your post was just a big series of assertions, none of which actually adressed my issue. Try again.

@Jormungander; Blast it all, why bother studying logic and philosophy when your opponent can just assert they are correct and be done with it. Sigh, <Kicks Can> Well, let's close down the site. See ya Everyone!

This idea of God actually can be arrived at by philosophical inquiry alone,

Let's have that then too, please?

Fortunate_Son wrote:

but here is what scripture does tell us:

Psalm 90:2Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

Genesis 21:33And Abraham planted a grove in Beersheba, and called there on the name of the Lord, the everlasting God.

Isaiah 57:15For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.

Deuteronomy 33:27The eternal God is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms: and he shall thrust out the enemy from before thee; and shall say, Destroy them.

I Timothy 1:17Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

So I take it you mean to say that 'eternal'/'everlasting' implies not contingent on any external factors, cause it sure doesn't mean not contingent on any external factors. If so, can you also fill in the gap as to what makes everlasting imply not contingent on any external factors.

Quote:

Quote:

So that would provide 'God' can exist in all possible worlds, so how do you provide that 'God' does?

I've already offered you my modal TAG argument. I'm going to start new threads for the other proofs.

I don't understand why you're answering me this way. You made this assertion:

Fortunate_Son wrote:

God is by definition an intelligent being who exists in all possible worlds.

Now justify it.

Quote:

God is a sentient being whose existence is not contingent on any external factors.

There are no conditions under which God could not exist.

Only establishes God possibly existing all possible worlds, but you say you've used it to define God as 'existing in all possible worlds'? Why?

The Transcendental Argument for God attempts to show that all systems of thought other than Christian theism collapse into unintelligibility.

I'm going to use this thread to administer TAG therapy to the sick of the forum. If you feel like coming in for a checkup, make a response to this OP that outlines your worldview, including any clashes with the Christian worldview.

My worldview is that we are all insignificant in our own way, but that we may become significant within our own lifetime, but it requires more than some silly book that not even your messaiah wrote.

Your therapy does not interest me at all...

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)

I fail to see how the TAG argument is anything other than the same, tired, rehash of second-rate logic that has existed since the dawn of the middle ages.

Why start there? Why not go further back? In... either the mesolithic, or paleolithic, ceremonial burial was developed... bada boom, bada bing.... and after about 45,000-10,000 years ... people started refining the logic behind this. They still didn't refine it in such a way as to be beyond reproach... after so many eons, and to this very day.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)

So I take it you mean to say that 'eternal'/'everlasting' implies not contingent on any external factors, cause it sure doesn't mean not contingent on any external factors.

An eternal being, if existent, would have to exist in all possible worlds. To presume that there are possible worlds where the being could not exist would be presuming that this being has to potential to cease to exist, which would contradict the concept of eternal. Hence, this being would be necessary, not contingent.

Quote:

Now justify it.

I did.

Quote:

Only establishes God possibly existing all possible worlds, but you say you've used it to define God as 'existing in all possible worlds'? Why?

This is addressed in the modal ontological argument and the modal TAG argument. We'll discuss it in those threads.

Logic is the process of proper inference, therefore you would already have to be applying the laws of logic in order to make inferences from your observation.

And this is also too easy. If Logic is the process of 'proper' inference, then there should likely be a form of 'improper' inference that does not use these rules, and just as a statement can be logical but wrong, so too can a statement be illogical and correct, thus these 'improper' inferences can eventually lead to the system of 'proper' inference known as logic. These 'proper' systems of inference will be selected by virtue of their better suitedness to aid mankind in survival due to their generally more accurate results.

Mental Evolution, as it were.

Once again, if you are trying to show that a person never doesn't know about the laws of logic, I have already shown that statement to be incorrect, and I actually sited some evidence. Unless you want to continue ignoring that evidence and hiding yourself from it like the last theist I debated Logic with did.

If Logic is the process of 'proper' inference, then there should likely be a form of 'improper' inference that does not use these rules, and just as a statement can be logical but wrong, so too can a statement be illogical and correct

Logic is the very fundamental mechanism by which we correct ourselves! How could you say that we derive logic by discovering it through being illogical? The very process of codifying it after we incidentally discover it through our illogic still requires a guiding post of rationality as opposed to irrationality. For example, if what you say is true, then we had the innate capacity to correct ourselves in the face of new observations. This requires, first of all, a pre-awareness that whatever is true cannot be false and vice versa.... and it also requires us to realize that whatever we observe something to be, it is what it is and it is not what it is not. This is intrinsic in the idea of self-correction.

But aside from that, your model does not work because if it is true that we derived logic through being illogical, then what reason do we have to believe that we properly corrected ourselves?

Improper inference, by its very nature, can never lead someone to truth. You may posit a conclusion that happens to be true, but that is not by virtue of the inference that you made. You will never come to realize truth until you've made proper inferences.

Quote:

thus these 'improper' inferences can eventually lead to the system of 'proper' inference known as logic.

How?

Quote:

These 'proper' systems of inference will be selected by virtue of their better suitedness to aid mankind in survival due to their generally more accurate results.

In other words, mankind, through a rational process, selected something that he felt would benefit him because he realized, from the beginning, that there was a real distinction between true and false, right and wrong, A and ~A... he had the pre-realization that [(p-->q) & p]--->q ..... in other words, he knew the axioms of logic and developed formal systems built around them.

Quote:

Once again, if you are trying to show that a person never doesn't know about the laws of logic, I have already shown that statement to be incorrect, and I actually sited some evidence. Unless you want to continue ignoring that evidence and hiding yourself from it like the last theist I debated Logic with did.

"Know" is a fuzzy term. I never claimed that we always know the laws of logic, in the sense that we are able to articulate them by virtue of their a priority and necessity. I actually believe that the fallen nature for man accounts for why (and you are an example of this) people tend to think illogically.

What I would claim is that there is a structure to our experience which requires the application of specific axioms. Otherwise, we would never be able to close the gap between perception and knowledge because the things which we are given in sensation would not be coherent to us. For that to happen, we need a conceptual apparatus which allows us to comprehend the things which we perceive. This is why axioms cannot be derived from sense experience. They inhere in us, even if we cannot articulate them directly. Thus, if someone denies the law of non-contradiction, they are doing so even when they presume the law to be true, but the nature of man will tend to muddle this realization.

But aside from that, your model does not work because if it is true that we derived logic through being illogical, then what reason do we have to believe that we properly corrected ourselves?

We have some reasons, none of them absolute but enough to instil confidence that, kept at arms length, logic and science are the direction of 'proper' reasoning with all that it implies. Key example- technological progress, language and politics have expedited our arrival at high rates of survival of the species.

Organisation of mental experience pays off instantly, that is why it evolved, we're doing ok thanks to it , that is why we know it is reliable.

Logic is the very fundamental mechanism by which we correct ourselves! How could you say that we derive logic by discovering it through being illogical? The very process of codifying it after we incidentally discover it through our illogic still requires a guiding post of rationality as opposed to irrationality. For example, if what you say is true, then we had the innate capacity to correct ourselves in the face of new observations. This requires, first of all, a pre-awareness that whatever is true cannot be false and vice versa.... and it also requires us to realize that whatever we observe something to be, it is what it is and it is not what it is not. This is intrinsic in the idea of self-correction.

Actually, no it doesn't, because self correction need not have as its goal the persuit of truth, merely the persuit of survival. This would open it up to evolution and natural selection, which neither require minds nor rational processes, being essentially just trial and error until you find something that works, contrast it with something that doesn't work, and in so doing both establish the law of non-contradiction, and advance the species.

Quote:

But aside from that, your model does not work because if it is true that we derived logic through being illogical, then what reason do we have to believe that we properly corrected ourselves?

No reason at all. This is why people still study logic and come out with different and often wildly contradictory schools of logic.Expanding on this, and continuing As Eloise said, we actually do have some reason to suspect that we are at the very least on the correct heading, however we have no absolute reason to suspect we are absolutely or even slightly correct in any of our understanding of the universe.This is the most basic premise of the entire scientific method, and it is this understanding that has led science to supercede both philosophy and logic as our method of determining the nature of reality.

Quote:

Improper inference, by its very nature, can never lead someone to truth. You may posit a conclusion that happens to be true, but that is not by virtue of the inference that you made. You will never come to realize truth until you've made proper inferences.

Perhaps, but you just admitted that someone can just randomly think up the truth, completely divorced from rational or 'proper' inferrences. Thus the so-called 'axioms' of logic might have just been dreamed up one day, completely out of the blue, and they worked so well that we just stuck with it.

However I contend your assertion that improper inferences cannot lead to truth. Were one to follow their improper inferences to an improper conclusion, were that conclusion correct, it would still be correct, even if improper, and the improper inferences would still have led the person there.

As an example, were I to state that the earth grows flatter the wider a view one takes of it, thus the earth must be round, I would have reached a correct and truthful conclusion through illogical and improper inferences. I agree that this is not true by virtue of the inference I made, however that does not change the fact that an improper inference led to truth.

In Truth, I would not say that any truth is vindicated by the inferences that allowed one to arrive at it, but rather that all truth is vindicated by it being demonstrable, and logic, although a quaint way of passing the time and discussing interesting scenarios, is ultimately of little use in the modern world, especially as science delves further into the nature of the universe, and discovers that so much of its workings are in fact illogical according to our traditional modes of thought.

Quote:

How?

Trial and Error? Process of Elimination? Random Guess?Not accepting a pathetic Argument from Ignorance as Fact?

Quote:

In other words, mankind, through a rational process, selected something that he felt would benefit him because he realized, from the beginning, that there was a real distinction between true and false, right and wrong, A and ~A... he had the pre-realization that [(p-->q) & p]--->q ..... in other words, he knew the axioms of logic and developed formal systems built around them.

Wrong, mankind no more consciously selected for or understood his own burgeoning rationality than we did our opposable thumbs. Rationality and Logic Works, and provides tangible benefits, thus it was selected for innately by virtue of Natural Selection and Evolution.

Since then, Rationality and Logic have become so focal in our lives and so important for our survival, that it has become difficult for humanity to even imagine not possessing these qualities. However the failure of modern man to imagine a being without a concept of logic does not mean that said being could not exist.

Quote:

"Know" is a fuzzy term. I never claimed that we always know the laws of logic, in the sense that we are able to articulate them by virtue of their a priority and necessity. I actually believe that the fallen nature for man accounts for why (and you are an example of this) people tend to think illogically.

So people can live without understanding the laws of logic? Would this not mean that people have to be taught the laws of logic, and thus the laws of logic are not intrinsicly bound into the human mind?

And yet still you ignore the evidence I have brought to the table. To be blunt, your little dances through logic are of no use to you, I have the evidence, I win.

Quote:

What I would claim is that there is a structure to our experience which requires the application of specific axioms. Otherwise, we would never be able to close the gap between perception and knowledge because the things which we are given in sensation would not be coherent to us. For that to happen, we need a conceptual apparatus which allows us to comprehend the things which we perceive. This is why axioms cannot be derived from sense experience. They inhere in us, even if we cannot articulate them directly. Thus, if someone denies the law of non-contradiction, they are doing so even when they presume the law to be true, but the nature of man will tend to muddle this realization.

I disagree with this as well. Bacteria lack a mind which can process logical thought, and yet they are capable of understanding and comprehending their surroundings. It is true that their perception is limitted, and that ours is generally greater by virtue of our more developped senses and minds, which then do necessitate a greater framework with which to make judgements, however that does not mean the laws of logic are not still derived. Once again, I have the evidence. Young Children do not comprehend the laws of logic, they must discover them through the course of their youth.

Of Course, all of the most basic laws of logic are also physical properties of the Universe*, thus it is quite simple to derive them, and children arrive at the basic ones fairly quickly. Furthermore, I can easily suggest that the reason one cannot deny the Law of Non-Contradiction* is because this concept is inextricably tied into the universe. Humanity has merely codified a natural property and expanded upon it, long has it actually been such a property.

*Except where they're not/Except when they Can; which happens generally in any principle with the word 'Quantum' in front of it. CONFOUND YOU HEISENBURG!

Actually, no it doesn't, because self correction need not have as its goal the persuit of truth, merely the persuit of survival. This would open it up to evolution and natural selection, which neither require minds nor rational processes, being essentially just trial and error until you find something that works, contrast it with something that doesn't work, and in so doing both establish the law of non-contradiction, and advance the species.

Okay. So without logic, how are we able to distinguish that which works from that which does not work? Why can't that which works also be that which does not work?

Quote:

No reason at all.

Okay. Then I am going to declare myself the winner of this debate because according to my logic, you are wrong.

Quote:

Expanding on this, and continuing As Eloise said, we actually do have some reason to suspect that we are at the very least on the correct heading, however we have no absolute reason to suspect we are absolutely or even slightly correct in any of our understanding of the universe.

How do we know that correctness is not incorrectness?

Quote:

As an example, were I to state that the earth grows flatter the wider a view one takes of it, thus the earth must be round, I would have reached a correct and truthful conclusion through illogical and improper inferences.

You did not reach the truth through the improper inferences! You made improper inferences but then happened upon the truth such that you were able to make a proper inference and determine that your previous inferences were not proper.

Quote:

I agree that this is not true by virtue of the inference I made, however that does not change the fact that an improper inference led to truth.

No it did not! That's like saying that my alarm going off led to me making my coffee in the morning. There was absolute no connection.

Quote:

discovers that so much of its workings are in fact illogical according to our traditional modes of thought

Examples?

Quote:

Trial and Error? Process of Elimination? Random Guess?Not accepting a pathetic Argument from Ignorance as Fact?

Right. Using logic.

Quote:

Wrong, mankind no more consciously selected for or understood his own burgeoning rationality than we did our opposable thumbs.

Where did I disagree with this?

Quote:

So people can live without understanding the laws of logic?

No, you did not read what i wrote.

Quote:

Would this not mean that people have to be taught the laws of logic, and thus the laws of logic are not intrinsicly bound into the human mind?

Nope. They are intrinsically bound into the human mind.

Quote:

And yet still you ignore the evidence I have brought to the table. To be blunt, your little dances through logic are of no use to you, I have the evidence, I win.

Sorry, but science is enslaved to philosophy. You cannot use the scientific method to prove that logic is true. It has never been done and you will never be able to demonstrate that this is possible.

Quote:

I disagree with this as well. Bacteria lack a mind which can process logical thought, and yet they are capable of understanding and comprehending their surroundings.

They do not understand anything. Just because something acts does not mean that it knows.

Quote:

Young Children do not comprehend the laws of logic, they must discover them through the course of their youth.

Yes they do. They are able to comprehend the things they perceive, which is allowed by the most basic assumptions.

Quote:

Of Course, all of the most basic laws of logic are also physical properties of the Universe*, thus it is quite simple to derive them

Okay. Where in the universe is the law of non-contradiction located?

(Seriously, debating logic with scientists is too easy. They falter everytime for the same reason.)

Prior to learning to think rationally, our natural inborn intuition and ability to learn, which we now know that we inherit as humans from evolution.

I'm asking you: How are we able to distinguish that which works from what which does not work if we not already rational? Making the distinction is already applying the law of non-contradiction! In order to have the ability to learn, we would already have to know logic. Otherwise, we did not actually learn anything.

Furthermore, if logic is just the result of instinct or evolution, then there is absolutely no reason to trust it. Since different minds often contradict one another, it could be that what you believe in illogical is actually logical... and that what you believe works is actually what does not work and that we are less evolved than we should be.

Quote:

Sometimes it is. Some ideas work better than others.

Okay.

Read what I said really carefully.

Why is it the case that what works (A) cannot also be that which does NOT work (~A)?

Quote:

At the base, more correct is distinguished from less correct by its ability to make better predictions. See: Pragmatism and Prediction

How do you know that which has the ability to make better predictions is not also that which does not have the ability to make better predictions?

Prior to learning to think rationally, our natural inborn intuition and ability to learn, which we now know that we inherit as humans from evolution.

I'm asking you: How are we able to distinguish that which works from what which does not work if we not already rational? Making the distinction is already applying the law of non-contradiction! In order to have the ability to learn, we would already have to know logic. Otherwise, we did not actually learn anything.

I assure you that when I was a newborn baby, I did not know logic. Instead, my human brain inherited the evolved capacity to learn from the experiences of the environment, and the natural ability of intuition which allows me to apply what I've learned in a practical way.

I'm able to distinguish what works from what doesn't because that's part of my natural inborn intuition and learning ability. My brain is naturally, constantly making predictions (both bad and good) about future experiences, and then noticing when those predictions are realized through experience. Whatever concepts happen to make better predictions are automatically reinforced with a little jolt of "Ah ha!" and whatever concepts make worse predictions either fade away, or are discouraged with a jolt of "Oops!" This simple mechanism is built in to us from birth. Some instincts are hard-wired, such as fearing certain things or recognizing faces or the sucking response. These things exist because they worked in the evolutionary past, and were inherited. They do not require 'knowing logic', they only require 'whatever works good enough for survival'. Logic is a symbolic system invented by humans.

Here's an obvious question for you: If everyone is inherently logical, why do we see so many examples of illogicality in humans?

Here's another one: If logic does not need to be learned, then why is it that when we teach people logic, they learn to be more logical?

Quote:

Furthermore, if logic is just the result of instinct or evolution, then there is absolutely no reason to trust it.

First, it's not the sole result of instinct and evolution, it's also the result of trial-and-error and cultural transmission. Second, there's no reason to trust it *blindly*, but there is good reason to trust it: Because it works. It has worked in the past, and it will likely work in the future.

Quote:

Since different minds often contradict one another, it could be that what you believe in illogical is actually logical...

Here's another question for you: If everyone is logical, then why do different minds often contradict each other? Worse, why does the same mind often contradict itself?

Quote:

and that what you believe works is actually what does not work

Probably wouldn't survive very long if that were the case, would I?

Quote:

and that we are less evolved than we should be.

Define 'should' in the context of evolution. Without mentioning anything supernatural.

Quote:

Quote:

Sometimes it is. Some ideas work better than others.

Okay.

Read what I said really carefully.

Why is it the case that what works (A) cannot also be that which does NOT work (~A)?

Eloise was right. I said, sometimes it is.

Again, you have this idea that logic maps onto nature perfectly. It doesn't.

Rarely is something in nature True vs. False, especially when it comes to practical ideas that are being tested if they 'work'. Instead, some ideas work really well (make good, fast, accurate, and reliable predictions), and some ideas work less well, and some ideas don't work at all (they either make bad predictions or they make no predictions at all).

Newton's laws are not capital-T True, they are small-t true. If actual, practical truth were binary/boolean, then when Einstein's relativity came along we would have to entirely reject Newton's laws as being False. But we don't. We still use Newton's laws all the time, because while they are not True, they are true. They work, they make pretty good predictions, accurately, reliably, and quickly. In some cases, they actually work better than relativistic equations, because they are simpler and can thus be used more quickly, with no appreciable decline in accuracy or reliability. It all depends on what you're trying to accomplish.

Sometimes Newton's laws work, and sometimes they don't. Most things in life are this way. Try to fit that into your 'logic'. In fact, logic itself is one of those things that sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. Try reasoning logically with a crying baby.

Quote:

Quote:

At the base, more correct is distinguished from less correct by its ability to make better predictions. See: Pragmatism and Prediction

How do you know that which has the ability to make better predictions is not also that which does not have the ability to make better predictions?

Memory and context. I try things, if they work, I remember them, if not, I forget them. When something that used to work seems not to work anymore, I look around to see if the context has changed. If I can figure out (intuition) what's changed, I can either modify the idea, or simply remember that it can only be used in certain contexts.

Babies can do this naturally from birth, it does not require any learning (in fact, it's a *type* of learning). It doesn't require an understanding of logic, either. It just happens automatically.

Sometimes (actually, often), even our intuitions fail. They are not perfectly logical either. This is how, for example, superstitions form. You try something, and notice that it 'worked', when in reality it was just coincidental, and then you repeat the idea over and over again to try to get it to 'work' again. We can even fool ourselves that such superstitions really *do* work very well. For example, prayer.

It is *because* our intuitions are imperfect, not entirely logical, that we developed systems of logic in the first place. They allow us to correct, improve, and extend our basic intelligence in many circumstances.

Here's another question for you: If humans are perfectly logical, then why are there so many different systems of logic in existence? Why do eastern philosophers use 'yin yang' style logic, which is not even a formal system? Why is there modal logic, first-order logic, predicate logic, fuzzy logic, dialectical logic (and many brands of that as well), etc.? You would think that if we're all so inherently logical, that at least we would come up with the exact same system of logic that works in all situations.

TAG fails for the same reason Fortunate_Son is so easily taken in by it. It is the masked man fallacy. It posits that logic exists (that is, matter and energy behave in coherent, predictable ways), and also posits that mind is required for logic (logic this time the conceptual abstraction of the ways in which matter and energy behave predictably and coherently). There is a quick substitution of "logic" in the first sense (the coherent, predictable interaction of matter and energy) with logic in the second sense (the concept of logic in our own skulls), and a quick non sequitur suggesting god must've always been there for the concept of logic to always have existed. You get a logical fallacy two-fer.

There is nothing that amazing about us being able to figure out that reality behaves in a coherent, predictable manner. Hell, my dog does that every time I throw her a ball and she catches it unerringly in her mouth. Does that mean Roscoe understands Newton's Laws? No. Does it mean that nature behaves in a way consistent with Newtons Laws? Yes.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers